| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Judge to Issue Microsoft Rulings | |
|
||
| Time: 17:52 EST/22:52 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Thanks, Tim The e-mail notice did not indicate what the rulings would say. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:17:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/31/2002 6:28:03 PM |
|
"The e-mail notice did not indicate what the rulings would say. "
If she released the rulings in the email announcing the rulings release, then we wouldn't really need to announce the rulings release, would we? Ok sodajerk, get your flaming keyboard fingers ready!!!!! |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/31/2002 6:57:36 PM |
|
The notice is interesting. I don't know if it's unusual though or indicative of anything. But the reason she's announcing the ruling is because of its impact and importance... Clearly its ready, and she doesn't need a day's extension to finish the decision. If you notice, they are also holding the release after the close of the market to minimize its impact on the stock market.
The notice explains who will be hosting the documents, who will be sent them, and when and in what format they'll be released. I can hardly wait. |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/31/2002 7:27:59 PM |
|
Any bets are whether she overturns the DOJ settlement? :)
|
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/31/2002 7:37:30 PM |
| of course, soda. How high are you willing to go? |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/31/2002 8:13:18 PM |
| If I'm not mistaken every ruling from Jackson came in a similar manner - an email or phone call the day before the ruling was released. All rulings were released after market close. This seems no biggie from a procedural standpoint. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/31/2002 8:54:55 PM |
|
This is the first and only one that I can remember that was announced ahead of time... I've received all of the mailings out of the dcd, although they've been through different procedures and systems, depending on jurisdiction, but none of them were accompanied by an announcement beforehand.
So how much, soda? I'm ready to work out the details of a cash wager. |
| #7 By 116 (66.69.198.173) at 10/31/2002 10:11:21 PM |
|
i want some of this action... <just got back from vegas> bring it jerk!
Name your bet. Peace, RA |
| #8 By 3339 (64.175.43.189) at 10/31/2002 11:43:16 PM |
|
I have a single $50 bet for soda, even, if he wants it. I don't think I can take you, right now, Red (unless soda doesn't want it)--it's been a fun and expensive couple of weeks, and I intend to keep it rolling this wekend too...
so no Vegas for me for a little while. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 11/1/2002 12:32:16 AM |
| So, blue says it will be upheld and jerk says it'll be overturned? Or do I have that backwards? |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/1/2002 12:47:49 AM |
|
Oh, I'm not going to take that bet, as my feeling is that we'll see a modified settlement and then we'd get into all sorts of wrangling as to just how far it's been modified.
Although I suspect any modifications will primarily be situated in the monitoring and enforcement, rather than any changes(like open sourcing Office). This also won't be the last of it. Within 5 years we'll be back at it, but to make a substantial change will require an act of Congress. |
| #11 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/1/2002 1:03:42 AM |
| God help the stock markets Monday... if the settlement is thrown out. Just think of all the extra years, those near-retirement workers will have to put in... all because Microsoft's competitors can't seem to build a marketable product. |
| #12 By 3339 (64.175.43.189) at 11/1/2002 1:52:33 AM |
|
Red, do you want it? soda, I don't think there is any "modifying it"--she either rejects it, and issues her own ruling--which may be quite similar but different than the settlement--or she accepts it... than I still am unsure of whether she can accept it and still issue a further ruling that's only applicable to the dissenters (?); personally, I think no, but I think that's even still a possibility.
Hell, maybe I'll really enjoy the gamble more than the result... Hold off for a while, maybe I'll double it if comments keep going this way. |
| #13 By 3339 (64.175.43.189) at 11/1/2002 2:02:33 AM |
|
By double "it", I meant my cocky attitude... I wouldn't want anyone to think I was suggesting anything illegal or improper. Not me! ;-)
...hmmmph, hmmph... (but seriously, Red, do you want it? I mean it.) |
| #14 By 9549 (63.88.169.2) at 11/1/2002 7:32:49 AM |
| Can they appeal it? the Nine states part was an appeal wasn`t it. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/1/2002 10:40:15 AM |
|
cto - Either side could appeal it again back to the Federal appeals court, and then to the SCOTUS.
I suspect though that KK probably ran this by the federal appeals court that she had this case thrown down from, so that her ruling won't be overturned... by them at least. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/1/2002 12:26:55 PM |
|
Red, you've only got about 4 hours to make a decision about winning some easy money.
how can people like cto toss out such baloney and still think they have a valid opinion on this case? Has he heard anything about this case at all or seen a single episode of Law & Order or something? Jeez-us. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/1/2002 2:28:06 PM |
|
2 hours to go, and no takers on 50 easy dollars? You're all a bunch of wimps! Red, you still have first dibs on it if you want it.
Since soda dared anyone to take a bet, he has backed down and every other poster has said--"It doesn't matter they will appeal for two more years." Pathetic! This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 15:17. |
| #18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/1/2002 4:10:40 PM |
|
I'm not very concerned about the effects on the market. I would wager that a favorable result for MS would produce little if nothing of a rally for the market, and that if it is negative, the effects will largely affect MS alone. I've got equities too, Baarod, I'm not impressed.
Coach, soda and Red said they wanted some action--I'm giving it and they're running with their tails between their legs. Yes, I do think it's wimpy to say, "I'll take a bet... Ow, you actually will take the bet... errrr, nah!" |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/1/2002 4:13:09 PM |
|
Oh, by the way, Coach, I don't necessarily think it's a wise thing to do over these boards, but I am serious. I think we can arrange a way to handle this privately, and considering the Brits love of gambling, I don't think they (most of the admins) are all that preoccupied with what I might be up to--one simple straight gentleman's wager. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, November 01, 2002 at 16:24. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/1/2002 4:35:12 PM |
| Yup, you missed your chance, boys. WOuldn't it have been satisfying to have one a bet with sodajerk? |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 11/1/2002 7:18:49 PM |
|
No, Coach, I wasn't suggesting you wanted a bet either--I just knew that if I wouldn't win, I could scare away the nancy boys, and as I said, I like to gamble... that means knowing how to take your loses when they come if they come... and they always do.
No, this will have zero effect on any elections. The consumer never understood the issues and never will. Citizens are more concerned about bigger issues and they aren't "consuming" right now anyway. That's what is pathetic about this AG flap--Blumenthal may have been slightly preoccupied but he did lots of other important cases as well--his opponent is an idiot for trying to make it the most important issue. |
| #22 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 11/1/2002 11:52:00 PM |
|
jerk, can we move past this silly bet? Lets focus on that shitepile and start rubbing your nose in it...
Is it just me, or is the sky bluer today? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 327 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:17:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
